BHURI SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE son of the petitioner, namely, Vikas, was living along with his grand mother, uncle and the mother of Vikas at village Har, P.O. Talwar, District Kangra, H.P. On 28th February, 2013, said Vikas left home after lunch but did not return thereafter and got missing. The petitioner's wife, along with relatives, carried out a search to locate but could not trace him anywhere. The dead body of Vikas was found on the next day i.e. on 1st March, 2013 at about 1:30 p.m., at, a very nearby place. The petitioner avers that he apprehends that his son was murdered, yet, the local police is bent upon to prove the same, as, a suicide and has not been carrying out the investigation in a fair and impartial manner. Even an F.I.R. has been averred to have not been registered. Ultimately, petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palampur and on directions having been rendered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palampur, on the application, F.I.R. was came to be registered by the police on 11th June, 2013. It is further averred that even after registration of such F.I.R., the Investigating Agency, is, not conducting the investigation in proper perspective. The petitioner avers, that there is absolute indolence on the part of the police, investigating the case, as also, lack of will on its part to find out the real culprits, involved in the commission of the offence. Therefore, it is, prayed that this Court, direct that the investigation into the case be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

(2.) THE respondents filed a detailed reply, to, the writ petition, wherein, it has been contended, in denial to the averment of the petitioner, by the respondents, being lethargic, as well, as showing un -interestedness, in conducting the investigation, into the offence. Rather, it is contended that the investigation, into the case, has been carried out by the police and no clinching material or evidence came into existence to prove the case under Section 302 IPC and, as such, cancellation report, is, being prepared. It is contended that on, the dead body of the deceased, being recovered, the video -graphy and photography was carried out by respondent No.4 and statements of the witnesses were recorded at the spot. The statement of the petitioner does not disclose any kind of suspicion on any person. The investigation of this case is stated to have been carried out fairly and honestly, as also, in accordance with law, by respondent No.4. During the investigation, it is stated to have come that the deceased was having affair with Shilpa, with whom he had a quarrel. The deceased is stated to have time and again pressurized Shilpa to marry him and to flee away with him and on her refusal, he was threatening to commit suicide. On 28.2.2013, also, the deceased had a quarrel with Shilpa on the issue of marriage with him to which proposal she refused. On her refusal, the deceased threatened her to commit suicide. One Tarun, the classmate and immediate neighbour of the deceased, is stated to have made a statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., during the investigation that he has given insecticide to the deceased, on his demand, as, he wanted to kill termite. The Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased, opined the duration of death and post mortem is 24 -28 hours and no fatal injury was found on his person. The viscera of the accused, preserved by the medical officer, were sent for examination to the FSL, Dharamshala, who, after examination, opined that Organ phosphorus insecticide was detected in the contents of viscera. No evidence with regard to the forcible administration of the poison was found during the investigation. As such, after having investigated every aspect of the matter, the investigating officer came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicidal death.